Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guy Macon/Archive

Suspected sockpuppets



 * Tools: Editor interaction utility • Interaction Timeline • User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

Special:Diff/1043266233 and Special:Diff/1043266395 appear to demonstrate nominally retired editor using an undeclared alternative account,, to edit projectspace. These diffs demonstrate Guy continuing an interaction that began on the DSX account, stating that he answered another editor's question (Your question was "Is it?" My answer was "Yes.") when the DSX account was the one that wrote that answer, and elaborating on the original answer (I even added a note telling you where to go to request a change in how the template is currently used per DSX's original Proposed changes to the instructions for when to use a template belong on the template's talk page). The second diff demonstrates Guy removing this comment minutes after its making.

Guy was placed under a IBAN when he was unblocked. Shortly after he retired, and then returned under this account. Per WP:CLEANSTART, he was not allowed to do so due to the ban. Vaticidalprophet 05:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: the DSX account has also made ref desk comments asking about the extent of CU powers and mentioning use of a user agent spoofer. While this is reasonable curiosity, it's contextually odd. Vaticidalprophet 11:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''
 * Gonna jump in because I was the one who, when asked, advised Vati that there was a policy violation here (although I was neutral on whether an SPI should be filed). The editing restriction was an unblock condition, and is logged at WP:Editing restrictions, so, while it may have been voluntarily entered into, it's not "voluntary" in the sense that Guy can walk away from it anytime he likes, and thus does prevent him from using an undisclosed alt. That said, given that he hasn't violated the IBAN under the DSX account, and given that blocks are not punitive, now that Guy acknowledges that he controls both accounts, I agree there's no harm being done, as long as he links the accounts on their userpages or commits to only using one of them going forward.  -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 17:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. See User talk:Dalek Supreme X. My apology for not noticing that requirement before.
 * Note to User:Vaticidalprophet: In the future, you might want to consider simply talking to me on my talk page before escalating. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not exactly. The block log shows that unblocking was subject to an interaction ban, not an editing ban. The log at WP:Editing restrictions confirms it is an interaction ban with a single user who is now indef-blocked, not a ban on editing anything on Wikipedia. Guy can come out of retirement and resume normal activity any time he wants, subject to that interaction ban. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * An interaction ban is a form of editing restriction, which is why they're logged at Editing restrictions. Again, this doesn't really matter now, but I think it's important to be clear on the policy there: Editors with active sanctions may not operate undisclosed alternate accounts. -- Tamzin  [cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, I control both accounts. Per WP:VALIDALT, alternative accounts are not necessarily sockpuppetry. I do not believe that WP:ILLEGIT was violated.
 * And no, I have not requested a clean start. I created the account 7 years ago because I sometimes am in the situation where I am using someone else's PC have some free time to do some typo fixing or some such, and do not want to type the password for my main account into a computer I don't trust. (Please read https://www.vice.com/en/article/k789me/omg-cables-keylogger-usbc-lightning for some background on why I don't trust strange computers.)
 * As for the edit in question, I recently decided to stop contributing to Wikipedia articles (but at the request of multiple editors am still maintaining a few essays) in protest over an administrator making up a new rule [I am not allowed to call someone by their username and I am not allowed to avoid using personal pronouns entirely] and blocking me without warning for breaking a rule that I did not know existed and which doesn't apply to other editors.
 * There remained a few minor things I wanted to deal with as I wind down my involvement, (that error in Christ myth theory has been on my todo list since January) and I figured that dealing with a user who wants to censor a press mention template to Slate (magazine) because they think Slate is "weird denialist claptrap" was worth doing.
 * "Wikipedia relapse" is a good description. After 15 years an 60,000 edits it is hard to walk away from a project I love. I gave in to temptation, commented on a factual error on one page and an attempt to censor a press mention on another page. I suppose I should just let obvious problems remain when I see them. It kind of sucks not being able to fix errors that any IP could fix without issue, but it was my decision to stop contributing to articles so I only have myself to blame.
 * I see no reason why I should avoid technical discussions on the computing reference desk, but if someone thinks I am no longer allowed to do that please let me know. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * While an explanation from Guy couldn't hurt, I hardly think this is socking. My interpretation of it is that Guy likely saw the article mentioned in the news, replied to a discussion in...a Wikipedia relapse I guess? (I honestly mean this in good faith and lack better words to explain what I mean), and then reverted himself after realizing something along the lines of "what the heck am I doing, I said I wouldn't edit this stuff anymore". The timeline of the Dalek Supreme account just does not line up: started back in 2015, and just grammar fixes since for the most part. I find it a stretch that Guy created a sock six years ago just to make grammar edits. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 08:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two determinations to be made here: is this Guy, and if so, is this a violation of policy? For the first, yes, I'm pretty sure, based on the diff Vati provided above. The second question is harder. This isn't a WP:CLEANSTART account, since it's existed since 2015 (and even if it were, that wouldn't be okay, since Guy is under an active TBAN). On the one hand, undisclosed alts are supposed to stay out of projectspace and are generally advised to stay away from areas the main account edits. On the other, I don't see any obvious cases of them engaging in inappropriate multiple-account behavior (votestacking, tag-teaming, evading a sanction on one account with another). I am going to drop SPI notices on both accounts and see what they have to say for themselves. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This SPI report is not actionable. I don't see a violation. Guy is not blocked, his ban is self-imposed and can be self-rescinded at any time, and as long as no other topic ban is being violated, an alternative account is allowable under the circumstances described. The only failing I see is that Guy failed to disclose the alternative account names on the respective user pages. please do so. As WP:VALIDALT says: "Alternative accounts should always be identified as such on their user pages, except where doing so would defeat the point of the account." I don't see how such disclosure would defeat the point of the alt account. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * so I think the easiest thing to do here is a soft block of the alt since there's a IBAN in place and the account wasn't disclosed until now. It just avoids ambiguity in the future. The policy is murky here, and while it might not be a clean start technically, the general sense of that policy is that if you are under sanctions, you should stick to one account. Let's not try to get into the weeds of what is technically a sock violation and not because Guy is a long-term contributor who has done a lot of good for this project. I don't think that's fair to him, because it makes the lines more blurry, and I also think it makes us look bad because in most cases someone who probably have at least the alt blocked.I've gone ahead and blocked the alt as a soft block, if there's a consensus here to overturn my block, I don't mind it at all. Guy, I think we've always gotten along, and this seems like the reasonable type of compromise that you could get behind that also has clarity, but I'm also very happy to discuss with you or anyone else if you think I'm somehow being unfair. If no one objects, someone can close the SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the above, and based upon past experience I would trust TonyBallioni's judgement even if I disagreed, which I don't.
 * Sigh. I thought that volunteering to not interact with a blocked user who has a problem with gender issues and asking that the restriction be logged was a simple solution to what I still believe was a bad 48 hour block. But since then the results of that decision have been:
 * Floquenbeam threatening to indef me if I say anything at all about the events leading up to my decision to stop editing articles.
 * Vaticidalprophet (who I don't remember ever interacting with and who has never shown any interest in the Jasenovac concentration camp) monitoring my posting history and filing this SPI.
 * Me discovering that I am no longer eligible for a clean start. I wasn't planning on a clean start, but having the option taken away by my own unwise decision is annoying.
 * There may be more ramifications to my decision that I don't yet know about.
 * Maybe I should go to ANI and ask that the logged restriction be tuned back into a 48 hour block and ride it out to avoid further complications.
 * Sadly, none of the above have anything to do with preventing any actual disruptive behavior on my part. Here is what it feels like to me; I expressed an opinion about gender pronouns. The resulting discussion convinced me that I was wrong. I have apologized over a dozen times for being wrong. Now I feel like I am doomed to be punished forever for that original (wrong) opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Would it have made a difference if the alt account had been disclosed before the interaction ban was imposed? Anyone under sanctions cannot use a disclosed alt account for legitimate purposes (like editing from a public computer)? ~Anachronist (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the context. I don't think Guy was trying to intentionally violate the policy, but I also agree that it was technically a violation. I don't think we should be blocking his main account, but I also don't really think that having an alt with a very different name that wasn't disclosed until there was already an SPI is ideal. If this had been User:Guy Macon alt or the like, I think that would be a much different story.Honestly, I would be fine with unblocking it if he renamed it to something readily identifiable. What concerns me is we have an alt that wasn't readily identifiable being used after an editor had retired to kinda edit like a clean start, but not really one because it was pre-existing, and only being acknowledged when it was brought here. That pushes it to the "probably not okay" point, but not so much where I think we should block the main account.In cases like that where everyone agrees there's probably a relatively minor socking violation by an established editor, I've always found blocking the alt and telling them not to do it again is the best way forward. If he wants to create another alt that people can easily link to him, or if he wants me to rename this to something that can be linked to him in a watchlist, I think we'd be in a good spot. What we shouldn't have is someone who has been under community scrutiny and sanctions editing with an alt that is difficult to identify from the edit history if it wasn't an already well known account before the sanctions. I hope that's somewhat coherent. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Please rename the account User:Guy Macon Alternate Account. I still have a need to be able to log on from public computers without exposing my main password. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, and the account is unblocked. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)


 * As the account has been declared and renamed, and Guy clearly isn't trying to be abusive, I don't think there is anything left to do here. Closing. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)